Home

Go Back   IndieTalk - Indie Film Forum > Making The Film > Filmmaking Misc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-01-2017, 12:59 PM   #1
mrpink89
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 551
60FPS

Anyone else think 60FPS looks horrible? I hope newer movies don't take this up. It look very ugly.
mrpink89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 01:22 PM   #2
AcousticAl
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon
Posts: 645
60p is a video look. If you're shooting for network television, it's fine.

If you're wanting to stay with the traditional film look, stick with 24p.

Peter Jackson shot the Hobbit trilogy at 48fps, which is (obviously) a multiple of 24fps, so it's in the same family. But it's a high frame rate, and audiences didn't respond well. It makes for better FX compositing, but not great narrative presentation in the end.
AcousticAl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 02:40 PM   #3
sfoster
IndieTalk Moderator
 
sfoster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,558
I absolutely loved the 48FPS for the hobbit. it's the best 3d i've ever seen
sfoster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 03:00 PM   #4
Quality
Basic Member
 
Quality's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,057
I completely distaste 60fps. It's heavy on the eyes if you're not playing first person shooter games for some reason and there's no motion blur in 60fps. Even though 24fps is traditional it works and makes sense. It is also less costly than recording 60fps footage, so why the unnecessary expense.
Quality is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 04:21 PM   #5
directorik
IndieTalk's Resident Guru
 
directorik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hollywood
Posts: 9,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quality View Post
It is also less costly than recording 60fps footage, so why the unnecessary expense.
What are the cost differences?
directorik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2017, 12:02 AM   #6
Quality
Basic Member
 
Quality's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,057
When I say cost I mean storage. RAW 60fps footage will more than likely be more writing data than 24fps. That means more money on hard drive/memory space. So image the difference with 24 and 60fps for a feature film.
Quality is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2017, 11:14 PM   #7
directorik
IndieTalk's Resident Guru
 
directorik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hollywood
Posts: 9,535
Okay, so when you said “It is also less costly” you meant it takes less
storage. What are the cost differences in drive/memory space?
directorik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2017, 06:33 AM   #8
Quality
Basic Member
 
Quality's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,057
If you record video footage at 24fps obviously the data that writes to the hard drive would be much less than it if were 60fps. So if you have a 90-minute film there's a possibility that you might need more space.
Quality is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2017, 09:25 AM   #9
directorik
IndieTalk's Resident Guru
 
directorik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hollywood
Posts: 9,535
I know that you will need more space. You said it is less costly. What are the costs differences?
directorik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2017, 10:01 AM   #10
Quality
Basic Member
 
Quality's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,057
I'm sure a 500gb Disk is cheaper than 1tb. Just an example.
Quality is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2017, 12:20 PM   #11
directorik
IndieTalk's Resident Guru
 
directorik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hollywood
Posts: 9,535
If you don't want to answer this simple question just say so.
I don't understand why you always avoid any simple discussion.
directorik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 02:49 AM   #12
Quality
Basic Member
 
Quality's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by directorik View Post
If you don't want to answer this simple question just say so.
I don't understand why you always avoid any simple discussion.
Lol, I did answer your question. The cost difference is obvious. Less storage will have a cost and more storage will cost more. I can't give exact figures. If your 90 minute RAW footage at 60fps exceeds the small storage then you'll have to afford more space.
Quality is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2017, 09:09 AM   #13
AcousticAl
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quality View Post
Lol, I did answer your question. The cost difference is obvious. Less storage will have a cost and more storage will cost more. I can't give exact figures. If your 90 minute RAW footage at 60fps exceeds the small storage then you'll have to afford more space.
Okay, I'll help.

You're spewing out thoughts that you cannot back up. You may be halfway right, but for the wrong reasons, and you have no idea how to get to where you think you're going here. Honestly, a few minutes with Google will tell you what you need to know.

If you're shooting on film, frames=feet=$. 60fps vs. 24fps. effectively more than doubles the cost (250% to be exact). With film, you pay per foot to shoot (purchasing film stock), you pay per foot to have it processed, and per foot to have it telecined. It's not likely these days that you'll pay per foot to have the final print since distribution is almost completely digital now. If you want a real example of the difference in cost of stock, a 100' reel of Kodak VISION3 200T 16mm film runs about $55. A 400' reel is about $220. There's no drop in per-foot price for buying more. Oh, and a 400' reel is about 11 minutes of shooting at 24fps. $220 for 11 minutes. Just to shoot 16mm (this doesn't even include processing and telecine). Up it to 60fps and that reel only goes about 4 minutes.

That's kind of a bad argument, though, because I don't know anyone shooting film at 60fps.

Now, in the digital world we're just talking about data storage. Camera cards are what they are, and unlike film can be cleared and reused. So, the first thing to look at is how much it costs to increase your storage space in post. A 4TB Thunderbolt drive from G-Tech is $300. So, let's assume (though it's not always the case) that 60fps requires 250% of the storage space that 24fps does. We'd need 10TB, and a 10TB Thunderbolt drive from G-Tech is $550. That's only a 50% cost increase in storage. In terms of production budget, that extra $150 is negligible. In other words, it's dirt cheap.

In RAW, yes, 60fps will eat up more data than 24p, though there are several flavors of RAW and 60p can be recorded without more-than-doubling storage needs. With other cameras/codecs (like Canon DSLR), 60fps is often relegated to a long-GOP codec while 30p and 24p are available in higher resolution, all I-frame codecs. So an EOS 80D actually requires more storage and a faster write speed to handle 1080p24 .MOV than it does to shoot 1080p60 .MP4.

But the moral of the story is that upping data storage by 250% doesn't cost so much that it's in any way cost prohibitive.

Last edited by AcousticAl; 08-07-2017 at 09:17 AM.
AcousticAl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2017, 02:22 PM   #14
Columbus
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
Columbus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Columbus,Ohio
Posts: 162
I will admit I only have a marginal experience on higher frame rates so if I say something wrong I apologize. That said I only think its useful for slow motion. Recording and playing at higher frame rates gives the footage I've seen that soap opera look that I can't stand.
Columbus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 12:35 AM   #15
sfoster
IndieTalk Moderator
 
sfoster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Columbus View Post
I will admit I only have a marginal experience on higher frame rates so if I say something wrong I apologize. That said I only think its useful for slow motion. Recording and playing at higher frame rates gives the footage I've seen that soap opera look that I can't stand.
It's wonderful for fast action sequences!
sfoster is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


©IndieTalk